Week in PARLIAMENT

Bill is Constitutional

Amidst the controversy raised by the Opposition on the Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilised Assets Bill, the Government which passed the legislation in Parliament on Wednesday with an overwhelming majority of 76 votes categorically stated the Bill will not have an adverse effect on the business ventures of private investors and entrepreneurs as the Opposition claims.

However, the Opposition members who challenged the legality of the bill described it as a draconian piece of legislation. They claimed the manner in which this Bill was presented to Parliament raises doubts about its objectives. They made the point though the Government has moved this as an urgent bill, it did not conduct a public debate about its wider implications. Soon after the oral questions session, the UNP MP Sajith Premadasa who first rose to his feet on behalf of the Opposition informed the House the bill is unconstitutional and it should not be debated. Later the UNP MPs Palitha Range Bandara, Wijedasa Rajapaksa, Karu Jayasuriya, Ajith Perera, Dayasiri Jayasekera and Joseph Michael Perera also fully endorsed the point raised by MP Sajith Premadasa by interpreting the provisions of the bill in terms of the Constitution and Parliamentary Standing Orders.

The Leader of the House and Irrigation and Water Management Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva who first countered the remarks made by the Opposition pointed out they cannot accept the argument put forward by the Opposition as the Supreme Court has determined the Bill is constitutional. The Minister firmly maintained the view the business of the Parliament cannot be stopped merely because of pending court cases. He explained to the House about the supreme authoritative powers vested in Parliament in a case like this.

Petroleum Industries Minister Susil Premajayantha and Foreign Employment Promotion Minister Dilan Perera who also spoke on behalf of the Government also maintained the same view on this matter. The Government also turned down five amendments proposed by the Opposition during the committee stage of the debate.

The Government members maintained the view the Supreme Court has already sent its determination to the House on this bill. The Government ranks in their interpretation maintained the stance that there is no legal barrier to debate the Bill in Parliament. However, this led to create arguments between the Government and the Opposition members on this matter. Finally Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa adjourned the House for 30 minutes to decide whether this debate can be taken up or not.

After the House resumed Speaker informed the House the debate can go ahead as planned. He told the House this Bill has been presented to Parliament as an urgent Bill with the approval of the Cabinet. Even the Supreme Court has determined the Bill is not unconstitutional. Speaker was of the view that Parliament is not always bound to accept the sub judice law and it should not be made applicable to this Bill. Subsequently the debate on the Bill commenced in the presence of a well attended Chamber.

After the debate started the Chief Opposition Whip John Amaratunga informed the House the entire Opposition will vote against the Bill.

Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa who turned into the key speaker of the debate responded to all queries levelled by the Opposition with details. The Minister categorically stated, as the Opposition claims, the Bill will not victimise any private investor or entrepreneur. Minister Rajapaksa in his well constructive speech which lasted over one hour explained to the House about the genuine reasons which led to move this as an urgent Bill.

Minister Rajapaksa maintained the view if any State property is being misused by violating the agreement, it is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard such properties on behalf of the country's people. He explained with details on the urgent need of moving such Bills to protect the public properties. However, the debate turned more emotional when the Minister referred to the Government's decision of taking over of Sevanagala Sugar Industries Limited.

The Minister refuting the claims made by the Opposition informed the House there was no political motive behind the taking over of Sevanagala Sugar factory.

Minister Rajapaksa said actually he did not intend to speak about this matter because of his personal friendship with its owner. Citing an example the Minister explained how the Government decided to take over three industries of which two belonged to a UPFA MP and their relatives while the chairman of the other company was closely associated with the Government.

He also explained with details how certain State properties had been vested to the private sector for a pittance during the UNP regime including the Hilton Hotel. Occasionally the Opposition MPs interrupted the Minister's speech. But the arguments put forward by the Opposition were successfully countered by the Minister.

The Minister told the House how even the temples, houses and media institutions were taken over during the regime of the UNP. As the Minister in charge of investment he assured the House that unlike the UNP, the Government has no intention whatsoever to take over any private property owned by the people. He described the war against terrorists to bring sustainable peace to the country as the biggest investment made by the UPFA Government. He assured the House the Government will try its utmost best to safeguard the genuine businessmen by providing all the necessary facilities to develop their industries.

UNP MP Dayasiri Jayasekera who commenced the debate on behalf of the Opposition commended the ruling given by the Speaker on the Bill. Jayasekera made the point earlier that the MPs were not allowed to talk even about a B report issued by a Court. However, the ruling given by the Speaker has opened avenues for the Opposition to speak in Parliament about Bharatha Lakshman's assassination and Sarath Fonseka's case in the near future. As highlighted by MP Jayasekera in his speech most of the Opposition MPs in their speeches queried in a situation where the BOI has all powers to take over any underperforming industry, what led the Government to introduce this new Bill by listing 37 companies as underperforming industries.

The Opposition alleged the Bill includes some enterprises which are neither underperforming nor holding underutilised assets. DNA MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake pointed out, when urgent Bills were introduced in other occasions, aggrieved parties were given a chance to appeal against their cases. But this Bill has no such provision and it has listed only the companies to be acquired.

After this bill is passed, aggrieved parties cannot go to Court. MP Dissanayake queried is it reasonable? He was of the view this is an arbitrary Bill and it should not be allowed to pass in Parliament in this manner.

TNA MP Sumanthiran in his speech queried if there was a genuine desire to take over underperforming resources, a special body would have been appointed by the Government to look into the documents of all underperforming business ventures. Each such underperforming industry would have come to some scrutiny. UNP MP Wijedasa Rajapaksa pointed out the objective behind this Bill is to discourage the local investors.